Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.30 seconds)Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Ram Bahadur vs Bahadur Singh And Sri Ram And Ors. on 19 December, 1922
In the absence of a document embodying the terms of the security created by the deposit of title deeds, the lender could have proved the deposit by oral evidence and obtained the benefit of the security; but when the transaction was accompanied by an unregistered document their Lordships held that the creditor could not establish his security by oral evidence as to the deposit, even though the document was inadmissible by reason of non-registration (see also Ram Bahadur v. Dusuri Ram (1912) 17 C.L.J. 399). The same decision of the Judicial Committee answers the argument that though the contract between the lender and the borrower cannot be proved without the document, the fact of a loan could be proved. Under the daw, the mere deposit of title deeds (with intent to create a security) would suffice, but in the case referred to, their Lordships declined to allow even the fact of such deposit to be proved when the document turned out to be inadmissible. It is obvious that when the creditor is asking for permission to prove the fact of the loan, he is only seeking to invoke the theory of an implied promise to repay.
Maung Kyin vs Ma Shwe La on 26 July, 1917
28. The theory propounded by Ormond, J., in Maung Kyi v. Ma Ma Gale (1919) 54 I.C. 84 at 92 and 94 (F.B.) that in every case of a promissory note loan "there are two distinct promises made by the borrower (1) that be will pay the amount borrowed to the lender and (2) that he will pay the amount due on promissory note to the holder of the note " that each promise is a distinct cause of action and that Section 91 applies only to the 2nd promise, seems to me, with all respect, equally artificial, if the learned Judge meant to hold that even promise No. 1 was an express promise.
Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sheikh Akbar vs Sheikh Khan And Anr. on 31 May, 1881
245 : 170 E.R. 345 was a case of an unstamped note given for a preexisting debt (in lieu of an acceptance of the defendant which was due when the note was given) and the language of Lord Kenyon is almost identical in terms with the first rule stated by Garth, C.J., in Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan (1881) I.L.R. 7 Cal. 256.
Pramatha Nath Sandal And Ors. vs Dwarka Nath Dey on 12 May, 1896
This was the position in Pramatha Nath Sandal v. Dwarka Nath Dey (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal.
Gopala Padayachi And Ors. vs Rajagopal Naidu on 16 April, 1926
In Gopala Padayachi v. Rajagopal Naidu A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 1148, Wallace, J., stated that when a promissory note is taken for a contemporaneous debt, the balance of opinion is that the execution of the instrument does not discharge the debt, but only suspends the remedy on the debt. I am unable to agree that this is the balance of judicial opinion in India.
D. Chockalingam Chettiar vs T.S.P.L.P. Palaniappa Chettiar And ... on 24 January, 1938
He regarded the decision of 'Stone, J., in Murugappa Chetti v. Nachiappa Chetti (1934) 67 M.L.J. 912, as being in conflict with the judgment of Varadachariar and; Burn, JJ., in Chockalingam Chettiar v. Palaniappa Chettiar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 595 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 261.